Good luck - make sure it is proof, if it is like the information you’ve outlined thus far, RM should be able to obliterate you for the reasons I’ve states. You can’t say I didn’t warn you.
Let’s ignore, for the moment, that a substantial number of your points are incorrect - based on substantial distortion and misrepresentation from the RWNJ chamber - if I wanted to debate the merits of your position I would have accepted your debate; im here to correct your basic issues with logic and reasoning, to make it clear what I expect your burden to be.
One or two bad stories - isn’t proof of fake news. The same way a plane crash doesn’t make air travel unsafe. It’s relative.
That the coverage is negative or positive doesn’t make the news fake - as you’re assuming non-fake need would be more positive, which may not be true. This is like Arguing that a particularly type of plane is unsafe because it’s had some crashes down to poor maintenance and genuine pilot error.
You could argue that Project Veritas - the organization that repeatedly selectively edits, repeatedly makes out of context videos and tricks people into talking about things in a way that it makes it seem like they’re talking about subtly different things - is a valid source, but it’s not, and you will likely be torn a new one if you mention it.
The same goes for “collusion”, this whole narrative, that the MSM were pushing a collusion narrative, is not accurate, and while it may sound good in your head to make an argument that you feel is open and shut, will require you to demonstrate that such a narrative exists, that it was demonstrably a lie and known to be a lie, and a whole host of other stuff.
This is a formal debate, which operates based on logic, and argument: which is probably more substantial than the Facebook memes and breitbart blog posts where you get your info.
The problem isn’t that I don’t understand your argument, it’s that your argument is bad.
Your whole argument is special pleading - that the universe required a creator, and God doesn’t. Your justification is basically you asserting that the universe needs a creator at some level and God doesn’t. Your list creates a big list of reasons why things must have a creator - then you exempt the creator from the reasoning you just listed to prove he needed a creator. The reason you exempt god from your logical reasoning for why he does not require a creator is because you have arbitrarily defined that there is a difference, and asserted that this arbitrary difference means God doesn’t follow the rules. This is bad logic.
The second point, is simpler, and oddly, a more profound error. You’re trying to prove God exists. You are doing that by trying to prove God is necessary. Your responses below seem to be implying that you were not arguing God is necessary. For god to be necessary, your God must be the only thing that could have created the universe, and by arguing that there could be lots of other things that could exist without a creator - you yourself have just argued away that inherent necessity. Why couldn’t any of those non-God things have caused the universe?
You don’t have to convince me God exists to win my vote - you just have to come up with a better argument. You should review the logic and reasoning you’ve used as it really is not as good as you think it is.
You’re confusing me pointing out the specific errors in your understanding about critical thinking, and your seeming lack of understanding about what proof means, and the differences between evidence and anecdotal evidence with a willingness to engage in nonsensical points about media bias.
I am going to be a voter on this debate - as I have been on 180+ other debates, and I am trying to help you and do you a favor by being explicit about what I view your default burden is before the debate really kicks off.
The biggest two related errors made by novice debaters , and quite frankly - a lot of the right wingers on this site, is the difference between proof and anecdote; and the assertion of narrative. Both are somewhat a form of confirmation bias - the first is the approach that one aspect of one occurrence is bad, and so from this you draw a broad and overreaching conclusion that is simply not supported by the individual droplets of data. The second, is that you operate on a baseline of your narrative being fact, and the evidence you produce being in line with that narrative. That is far different from walking through the evidence to demonstrate the narrative is correct.
You’re making both of them right here, and it undermines your position before you even start.
“How bout the fact coverage on CNN is over 90% negative on Trump?”
For this to be evidence of “fake news”, you need to show that the percentage of negative coverage is unfair or unreasonable. It’s not fake news if, for example, 90% of things trump does is bad.
“Or that they have over less than 5% of guests on that were pro-trump? https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-numbers-dont-lie-proof-of-fake-news-confirmed/“
For this to be evidence of fake news, you have to explain why it is wholly unreasonable for a network to have only 1-20 guests being Pro Trump - and why having this few pro trump guests indicates dishonesty, rather than a non dishonest or mundane explanation.
“Or the whole russia thing was a lie?”
In this case - you have to define what “this whole Russia thing” means - and prove that not only “ it was a lie” but that CNN propagated this “lie” intentionally. Just staying that the AG summarized an investigation that said he wasn’t guilty of conspiracy doesn’t invalidate, say, a general media narrative that where a picture of lies, odd behaviour, and incriminating circumstances were propagated - if those examples were reasonable.
“ Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
You could go with the Project Veritas link if you chose - you’d probably get ripped apart, as PV have a long history of using selective editing and out of context remarks to portray a given narrative of choice - with the videos you’ve stated being no exception.
The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news.
Unless you provide a substantial and compelling reason otherwise, you will have to show that CNN, as a media organization presents and provides content that is deliberately deceitful and misleading, in a way that rises significantly above the level of the average media organization.
Imo. Showing some bias, or where they got some facts wrong is not sufficient, unless you can show these instances are substantial worse than non fake news examples.
The issue here is that your whole argument was that God exists because he is necessary to explain the cause of the universe. The only justification for this statement was special pleading - that you make God exempt from the requirements that you assign to the universe.
The justifications you gave as to why God is exempt was arbitrary, and unsupported: the only reasons you gave as to why you can claim God doesn’t need an external creator whereas the universe does appeared to be down to reasons of the immaterial that you simply unilaterally state are exempt.
To have won this debate using the argument you made, you would have had to:
1.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why the universe necessitates a creator.
2.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator.
You did neither of those things. Instead what you did, is assert that an uncaused cause is required based on your arbitrary discussion about the immaterial.
“I don’t necessarily agree, but thank you for taking the time to vote - I will take this feedback on board”.
The whole point of debate is to elaborate on and justify your position in the face of an opponent doing the same. Your issue here, is that you didn’t do this successfully as you didn’t sufficiently deal with these claims of special pleading. You didn’t provide sufficient warrant for your case that the immaterial exists - and that not requiring a cause is limited only to god, and that the immaterial can only be a deity.
1.) make General statements that only marginally related to the resolution
2.) repeatedly ignore the resolution to focus on unrelated points
3.) Degenerate the debate into insults and name calling
Why should I (as a debater, not as someone who is just viewing the debate), read the debate resolution and the information provided, ask questions and not get a good answer, but still accept the debate, knowing that what is being said is not clear, and my opponent clearly feels there is something more at play (with for, example some semantic trick or play, that could change the resolution to an even more vague possibility), that could trap me because what he initially said is not clear.
Hi Justin, it’s nothing personal, and isn’t really to do with your vote specifically. The site has fairly strict standards on voting for one, which do take a little time getting used to. As well as that, there have recently been issues with people registering new throwaway accounts in order to vote for themselves: as a result, right now the moderation team are being overly strict in removing newly registered accounts voting rights. There are also a variety of resources you can take a look at to help, once you’ve been here a little longer, you’ll get your voting rights back.
The reason I voted you down is clearly stated in my RfD.
You were claiming liberals and conservatives have basically the same ideology, with some differences attributed to being “a little more liberal or classical”. You made little attempt to illustrate that those differences are attributable to those reasons (and to be honest you didn’t even really provide any demonstration that the two “share ideology” either).
To win, you needed to do the following:
Define what a bit more “classical” was
Define what a bit more “liberal” was
Compare ideological similarities, preferably with specific examples (you sort of did this, but broadly and barely)
Show differences that are raised can be placed in the first two categories.
As you only did 0.5 of those 4 things, you lost this debate.
Quite frankly, this was the worst debate you’ve done so far. It was almost impossible to understand what you were trying to actually argue for, your justification got lost in rambling 100 word sentences, and you didn’t appear to provide any warrant for the claims that you did appear to be making. Worse, you lost site of the resolution - you focused on more practicalities if implementation (which are overridden by fiat), and you spent none of your time really addressing how your position should be weighted against your opponents.
If you feel that debate was good, then this video is the best illustration of our differences:
“Well, the catch is linked to the following CFB but it's important to note that thoughtlessness and care-free enjoyment of life at the expense of highly intelligent AI surpassing us, even if desirable is going to be impossible and increasingly chaotic the longer that the system doesn't mandate surrender to it, which Pro has ruled out as being the policy-path taken.”
What?
“If all people who walk, ride bicycles and take public transport have less economic or difficulty-to-get-a-driver's-licence barrier then that increases the amount of people on the road, which means the AI has to calculate more variables to predict the future and optimally position itself on the road at all times, which makes the coding and game theory of the AI get perpetually more complex and more expensive to maintain up to a maximal point where it is unclear how Pro has concluded it will be cheaper and better than what happens and is priced today”
One long sentence 3 topics with 5 ands. What are you blathering on about.
Con was literally incoherent throughout this debate, and this excessive incoherence brought about by the repeated and incessant use of super long sentences, and little paragraphing structure fully warrants penalization on spelling and grammar.
On the other hand - pro was succinct, shorter, and far more readable, there were no issues with his understandability at any point.
So I almost never hit people with spelling and grammar - but here Con was simply unreadable. I couldn’t decipher what he was saying in almost the entire debate.
Some examples:
“It's not as if global warming would be saved by this since the distance travelled is hardly lessened and the fuel would be the same as it would be if it was non-automated (and if Pro combats this saying that the system would be able to become entirely cable-based, I will combat it with the utter nonsensical lack of feasibility of cabling every road in the nation, not to mention the abuse of civil liberties that would occur if you made the system automation-mandatory as opposed to an on/off thing they could choose to activate or not)”
This is a single sentence, covering about 5 different things.
“The issue is that if cars become readily available, cheaper in both fuel consumption and durability as they have to be built far less intense for accidents that are not just less common but less severe, then the entire global warming angle is re-negated by the fact that at all times, the human variables on the road are going to make absolutely everything about the system need to result in the cable-for-all tyranny where public transport is the only transport and we all go by train and/or bus.”
This is also one sentence talking about 6 different things and doesn’t even make any sense.
In essence: pro clearly outlined the benefits, and con was barely coherent, with the few harms that were understandable either refuted by pro - or irrelevant to the resolution.
Arguments resoundingly to pro.
Sources:
Pro used thorough and excessive sources throughout to prove his claims. When pro lists beneficial elements of AI, he adds to his warrant by citing the basis for the claims.
His opening round contained sources, from the DoT, Ohio university, IBM, science daily and many others. Pro builds up the benefits mainly by citing these sources to make claims about what AI will and won’t do.
Con, cites 4 sources total. 2 are completely irrelevant about game theory, and 2 are for a seemingly irrelevant argument about cost and difficulty of AI which was unrelated to the resolution.
Pro has quantity and quality - con needed to back up his claims with evidence rather than relying on his stream of consciousnesses.
I generally give up. This was unreadable and made almost no sense. It was literally incomprehensible to me.
To his credit, pro attempts in his R4 to try and stage a few counter points: but at this point almost nothing pro quotes from con, and nothing appears to be a credible warranted harm from automation.
Con is a collection of what ifs, assertions about affordability, and assertions about blame.
There was some mention about black mail that made no sense at all.
6.) Cons round 4 and 5 are little better than round 3. I understood barely anything he was trying to put forward and barely seems to offer any coherent detriment that is fully explained or warranted.
Even assuming that all the semi harms pro points out: potential issues with legal problem, lack of potential popularity, etc: the ones that are harms don’t appear to particularly problematic compared to pros benefits - and the ones that remain seem less to do with negative aspects of the technology - and more concerning why he feels it won’t actually be adopted - which isn’t related to the resolution.
Pro points out that if this is the case in the future, it will be the case now as people are currently being alert driving. Pro also points out that systems may become advanced enough to not require being alert in to first place.
2.) Slippery slope.
Con appears to claim that accepting autonomous vehicles will be a slippery slope to destroying humanity. Con barely even hazards an explanation of why. It appears he’s arguing that as we see how easy automation makes our lives, that well completely take over.
Pro easily dismantles this, he points out we’ve automated much of our lives already, why is this one that would
Spell doom?
3.) Blame
Con argues that this will fail as there will be issues with blame. Pro clearly explains there are already instances where this is handled in the case of planes.
4.) civil rights.
Con claims that people will be forced to give up their cars. Pro points out no one is saying this is mandatory.
Before I start, I would encourage Con to work on his debate style. The waffling, grandiose language and wall of text approach is detrimental to people being able to understand your arguments. This, combined with a contrived and often tangential set of arguments completely undermines the ability of others to understand your position as a whole also.
Almost every round was barely readable, I had to read each round multiple times to try - and fail - to understand what the incoherent mess was trying to convey.
Arguments:
Pro lists, in detail a number of the major benefits of autonomous vehicles. While short, pro does a very good job of succinctly explaining all the core benefits. Self driving cars are safer, can save time, energy and free up peoples time and productivity.
While Con argues there would be no fuel saving, though pro clearly explained the reasons why there would be. Other than this con appears to accept the entirety of pros list. This simplifies my task down to weighing the individual harms.
Cons Harms:
1.) Con argues that people being alert causes harm to humans intelligence by dulling the mind.
I don’t think RM is brave enough, otherwise I would have directly challenged him. I’m just seeing if there is any Flat Earthers out there, as I find going through and communicating the science interesting and challenging.
I enjoy taking the burden of proof in scientific debates of this kind, as it challenges by scientific knowledge and ability. You would be surprised at how many people are not able to prove basic scientific information.
I don’t know which is funnier, that he thinks you’re a Nazi because ww2 German chemical companies still exist - or the fact that he keeps tagging Whiteflame for literally no reason.
I know that voting restrictions are being worked on, but given this blatant abuse here just lost Moe a debate - is there any possibility this can be retroactively adjusted? Even if you had to manually tweak ELO?
4.) intelligence is predicated on physical brains.
While I get cons point here, this seems like a pretty tenuous argument. If your arguing that a supernatural being can or can’t exist, I think that whether intelligence depends on physical things is the least of you worries.
While pros counter was long, it’s two basic points “correlation is not causation”, and “just because we’re intelligent and have brains doesn’t mean everything that is intelligent requires brains”
This is not massively strong on either side here, but I kinda lean pro here that con is making larger factual claims without a factual basis.
This is my main issue with cons approach, if you want to use facts to undermine a philosophical argument - those facts have to be well supported, in multiple places con has not done that.
Given these, I feel that cons counter to both the KCA and the IS contingency argument were not sufficient, and therefore arguments go to pro
Finally, con raises the idea of quantum fluctuations being able to produce things without direct cause. Pro points out that unstable energy are the cause - and that just because we don’t necessarily directly observe the cause doesn’t mean that one doesn’t explicitly exist.
Pro plays to the intuitive strength of the KCA here. The reference example that it may have a cause was actually pretty good.
However, cons was fairly adamant that there could be no cause as quantum fluctuations are the absence of anything at all. My issue here is that while I feel cons argument is just as asserted as the KCA, I find pros rebuttal of quantum fluctuations having a cause more convincing - I don’t think this element of the KCA was strongly won by pro, but I think cons argument falls short, if con is going to argue a factual rather than philosophical objection, the basis has of it has to be better established.
3.) Temporal creation.
So I feel I’m missing something here. Con keeps arguing that creation is impossible because creation is temporal. But also argues that the universe can “originate”.
It seems pro happily agrees that the origin of the universe is timeless, and it’s not necessarily a temporal chain of events.
To me, that should be the end of it, I’m quite happy to consider the idea of philosophical non-temporal creation along the lines of timeless quantum fluctuations, or a timeless God.
It seems con is too: but is objection to it appears to be whether it is called “creation” or not. I literally do not get the line of reasoning con makes here and it appears to be merely splitting hairs - as I do not view pros premise of creation philosophically different from cons idea of quantum origination.
Con also states that the multiverse is necessary and contingent, given his contingent is being used here, I don’t think com really provides an explanation at how the multiverse can both require something else to exist, and is it’s own cause. Pro points these aspects out in his rebuttal.
Cons only response is that the universe can be dependent on itself through quantum fluctuations.
My issue here, as pro elaborates a little - is that quantum fluctuations and the laws that cause them may well have a cause. That the universe originated from anything else implies that it’s contingent on something else. If pro has argued that the universe (or multiverse), was always there, I’d be more sympathetic, as happily matches P1, but pro arguing that the multiuniverse originated from itself is not convincing - especially as con conceded P1.
2.) The KCA
Pro made a good KCA argument, that there has to be an underlying first cause to prevent infinite regress. I feel does well to show this cause must have some of , but not all, the qualities attributed to God.
I don’t buy that this is special pleading, as pro is attributing God as the “thing” he showed to exist. IE: There must be an exemption somewhere, so if there is already an exemption, it supports the idea of God.
I don’t feel that cons circular reasoning argument is that good here either, as I feel that the conclusion of God is drawn not from an implicit assumption that such uncaused causes exists, but that an uncaused first cause is a conclusion that follows from resolving infinite regress on P1.
Pro covers these points pretty well in his rebuttal.
Con also asked additional questions about the exemption, which pro covers by pointing out that it’s not an exemption as there is no proven rule.
Given cons history, and the likelihood that pro is not aware of the details, I wanted to challenge the agreed voting rules: I believe con has asked you to accept the rules in order prevent the most regular voters, and those who have voted against him in the past from voting to improve his chances of winning. In addition, the chances are likely that Bifolkal, the only con voter is con himself too.
I do not feel that I should be bound by rules that inherently benefit one side, when the other party may not have been aware of all the issues at hand.
If pro reviews my RFD, or reviews my voting history on Magics debates (where I have gone both ways) and concludes it is biased or unfair in ANY way, feel free notify the moderation team and remove this vote.
1.) IS, Necessary being.
So this argument, is essentially that all things require a cause, that means that there must be something that exists to be that cause that doesn’t itself require a cause.
I felt the portion of this argument for why this cause was a personal an intelligent being was highly tenuous, and almost an afterthought.
It wasn’t fully clear to me what cons rebuttal actually was, by the end, it appeared that he used the concept of a multiverse to argue that sum of contingents isn’t limited to this universe. To me, it isn’t fully clear why con feels this negates the premise, because I do not believe anything pro said would be refuted if you assumed that the sum of contingent things ended at the multiverse level rather than at the universe level. This counter appears to be mostly splitting hairs, rather than genuine rebuke
Good luck - make sure it is proof, if it is like the information you’ve outlined thus far, RM should be able to obliterate you for the reasons I’ve states. You can’t say I didn’t warn you.
Let’s ignore, for the moment, that a substantial number of your points are incorrect - based on substantial distortion and misrepresentation from the RWNJ chamber - if I wanted to debate the merits of your position I would have accepted your debate; im here to correct your basic issues with logic and reasoning, to make it clear what I expect your burden to be.
One or two bad stories - isn’t proof of fake news. The same way a plane crash doesn’t make air travel unsafe. It’s relative.
That the coverage is negative or positive doesn’t make the news fake - as you’re assuming non-fake need would be more positive, which may not be true. This is like Arguing that a particularly type of plane is unsafe because it’s had some crashes down to poor maintenance and genuine pilot error.
You could argue that Project Veritas - the organization that repeatedly selectively edits, repeatedly makes out of context videos and tricks people into talking about things in a way that it makes it seem like they’re talking about subtly different things - is a valid source, but it’s not, and you will likely be torn a new one if you mention it.
The same goes for “collusion”, this whole narrative, that the MSM were pushing a collusion narrative, is not accurate, and while it may sound good in your head to make an argument that you feel is open and shut, will require you to demonstrate that such a narrative exists, that it was demonstrably a lie and known to be a lie, and a whole host of other stuff.
This is a formal debate, which operates based on logic, and argument: which is probably more substantial than the Facebook memes and breitbart blog posts where you get your info.
A good debate to take a look it is this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/452
It’s a good example of a well arguments resolution.
The problem isn’t that I don’t understand your argument, it’s that your argument is bad.
Your whole argument is special pleading - that the universe required a creator, and God doesn’t. Your justification is basically you asserting that the universe needs a creator at some level and God doesn’t. Your list creates a big list of reasons why things must have a creator - then you exempt the creator from the reasoning you just listed to prove he needed a creator. The reason you exempt god from your logical reasoning for why he does not require a creator is because you have arbitrarily defined that there is a difference, and asserted that this arbitrary difference means God doesn’t follow the rules. This is bad logic.
The second point, is simpler, and oddly, a more profound error. You’re trying to prove God exists. You are doing that by trying to prove God is necessary. Your responses below seem to be implying that you were not arguing God is necessary. For god to be necessary, your God must be the only thing that could have created the universe, and by arguing that there could be lots of other things that could exist without a creator - you yourself have just argued away that inherent necessity. Why couldn’t any of those non-God things have caused the universe?
You don’t have to convince me God exists to win my vote - you just have to come up with a better argument. You should review the logic and reasoning you’ve used as it really is not as good as you think it is.
You’re confusing me pointing out the specific errors in your understanding about critical thinking, and your seeming lack of understanding about what proof means, and the differences between evidence and anecdotal evidence with a willingness to engage in nonsensical points about media bias.
I am going to be a voter on this debate - as I have been on 180+ other debates, and I am trying to help you and do you a favor by being explicit about what I view your default burden is before the debate really kicks off.
The biggest two related errors made by novice debaters , and quite frankly - a lot of the right wingers on this site, is the difference between proof and anecdote; and the assertion of narrative. Both are somewhat a form of confirmation bias - the first is the approach that one aspect of one occurrence is bad, and so from this you draw a broad and overreaching conclusion that is simply not supported by the individual droplets of data. The second, is that you operate on a baseline of your narrative being fact, and the evidence you produce being in line with that narrative. That is far different from walking through the evidence to demonstrate the narrative is correct.
You’re making both of them right here, and it undermines your position before you even start.
“How bout the fact coverage on CNN is over 90% negative on Trump?”
For this to be evidence of “fake news”, you need to show that the percentage of negative coverage is unfair or unreasonable. It’s not fake news if, for example, 90% of things trump does is bad.
“Or that they have over less than 5% of guests on that were pro-trump? https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-numbers-dont-lie-proof-of-fake-news-confirmed/“
For this to be evidence of fake news, you have to explain why it is wholly unreasonable for a network to have only 1-20 guests being Pro Trump - and why having this few pro trump guests indicates dishonesty, rather than a non dishonest or mundane explanation.
“Or the whole russia thing was a lie?”
In this case - you have to define what “this whole Russia thing” means - and prove that not only “ it was a lie” but that CNN propagated this “lie” intentionally. Just staying that the AG summarized an investigation that said he wasn’t guilty of conspiracy doesn’t invalidate, say, a general media narrative that where a picture of lies, odd behaviour, and incriminating circumstances were propagated - if those examples were reasonable.
“ Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
You could go with the Project Veritas link if you chose - you’d probably get ripped apart, as PV have a long history of using selective editing and out of context remarks to portray a given narrative of choice - with the videos you’ve stated being no exception.
The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news.
Unless you provide a substantial and compelling reason otherwise, you will have to show that CNN, as a media organization presents and provides content that is deliberately deceitful and misleading, in a way that rises significantly above the level of the average media organization.
Imo. Showing some bias, or where they got some facts wrong is not sufficient, unless you can show these instances are substantial worse than non fake news examples.
The issue here is that your whole argument was that God exists because he is necessary to explain the cause of the universe. The only justification for this statement was special pleading - that you make God exempt from the requirements that you assign to the universe.
The justifications you gave as to why God is exempt was arbitrary, and unsupported: the only reasons you gave as to why you can claim God doesn’t need an external creator whereas the universe does appeared to be down to reasons of the immaterial that you simply unilaterally state are exempt.
To have won this debate using the argument you made, you would have had to:
1.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why the universe necessitates a creator.
2.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator.
You did neither of those things. Instead what you did, is assert that an uncaused cause is required based on your arbitrary discussion about the immaterial.
The correct response is:
“I don’t necessarily agree, but thank you for taking the time to vote - I will take this feedback on board”.
The whole point of debate is to elaborate on and justify your position in the face of an opponent doing the same. Your issue here, is that you didn’t do this successfully as you didn’t sufficiently deal with these claims of special pleading. You didn’t provide sufficient warrant for your case that the immaterial exists - and that not requiring a cause is limited only to god, and that the immaterial can only be a deity.
Yeah. Right.
And the fact that see no problem in that particular strategy is how you got to where you are today.
You broke your normal strategy:
1.) make General statements that only marginally related to the resolution
2.) repeatedly ignore the resolution to focus on unrelated points
3.) Degenerate the debate into insults and name calling
Sorry. I meant to say:
Why should I (as a debater, not as someone who is just viewing the debate), read the debate resolution and the information provided, ask questions and not get a good answer, but still accept the debate, knowing that what is being said is not clear, and my opponent clearly feels there is something more at play (with for, example some semantic trick or play, that could change the resolution to an even more vague possibility), that could trap me because what he initially said is not clear.
I’m not going to accept a debate with an indecipherable resolution.
Or, these same many variables factor in to what makes one priority more important.
You mean “out of the list of life priorities offered by DebateArt, power is the most important”
Will vote on this tommorow.
Hi Justin, it’s nothing personal, and isn’t really to do with your vote specifically. The site has fairly strict standards on voting for one, which do take a little time getting used to. As well as that, there have recently been issues with people registering new throwaway accounts in order to vote for themselves: as a result, right now the moderation team are being overly strict in removing newly registered accounts voting rights. There are also a variety of resources you can take a look at to help, once you’ve been here a little longer, you’ll get your voting rights back.
I forgot stupidity. Pro doesn’t argue this at all either, as such I would state this point is a draw to, but doesn’t change the determination.
https://images.app.goo.gl/C3DLtCxvtzwQ8mJ96
https://images.app.goo.gl/4re5roYKZ6EZ4ig57
See my avatar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Hi Type1
The reason I voted you down is clearly stated in my RfD.
You were claiming liberals and conservatives have basically the same ideology, with some differences attributed to being “a little more liberal or classical”. You made little attempt to illustrate that those differences are attributable to those reasons (and to be honest you didn’t even really provide any demonstration that the two “share ideology” either).
To win, you needed to do the following:
Define what a bit more “classical” was
Define what a bit more “liberal” was
Compare ideological similarities, preferably with specific examples (you sort of did this, but broadly and barely)
Show differences that are raised can be placed in the first two categories.
As you only did 0.5 of those 4 things, you lost this debate.
Quite frankly, this was the worst debate you’ve done so far. It was almost impossible to understand what you were trying to actually argue for, your justification got lost in rambling 100 word sentences, and you didn’t appear to provide any warrant for the claims that you did appear to be making. Worse, you lost site of the resolution - you focused on more practicalities if implementation (which are overridden by fiat), and you spent none of your time really addressing how your position should be weighted against your opponents.
If you feel that debate was good, then this video is the best illustration of our differences:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpJW6lFUA_g
“Well, the catch is linked to the following CFB but it's important to note that thoughtlessness and care-free enjoyment of life at the expense of highly intelligent AI surpassing us, even if desirable is going to be impossible and increasingly chaotic the longer that the system doesn't mandate surrender to it, which Pro has ruled out as being the policy-path taken.”
What?
“If all people who walk, ride bicycles and take public transport have less economic or difficulty-to-get-a-driver's-licence barrier then that increases the amount of people on the road, which means the AI has to calculate more variables to predict the future and optimally position itself on the road at all times, which makes the coding and game theory of the AI get perpetually more complex and more expensive to maintain up to a maximal point where it is unclear how Pro has concluded it will be cheaper and better than what happens and is priced today”
One long sentence 3 topics with 5 ands. What are you blathering on about.
Con was literally incoherent throughout this debate, and this excessive incoherence brought about by the repeated and incessant use of super long sentences, and little paragraphing structure fully warrants penalization on spelling and grammar.
On the other hand - pro was succinct, shorter, and far more readable, there were no issues with his understandability at any point.
S&G to pro too
Spelling and grammar.
So I almost never hit people with spelling and grammar - but here Con was simply unreadable. I couldn’t decipher what he was saying in almost the entire debate.
Some examples:
“It's not as if global warming would be saved by this since the distance travelled is hardly lessened and the fuel would be the same as it would be if it was non-automated (and if Pro combats this saying that the system would be able to become entirely cable-based, I will combat it with the utter nonsensical lack of feasibility of cabling every road in the nation, not to mention the abuse of civil liberties that would occur if you made the system automation-mandatory as opposed to an on/off thing they could choose to activate or not)”
This is a single sentence, covering about 5 different things.
“The issue is that if cars become readily available, cheaper in both fuel consumption and durability as they have to be built far less intense for accidents that are not just less common but less severe, then the entire global warming angle is re-negated by the fact that at all times, the human variables on the road are going to make absolutely everything about the system need to result in the cable-for-all tyranny where public transport is the only transport and we all go by train and/or bus.”
This is also one sentence talking about 6 different things and doesn’t even make any sense.
In essence: pro clearly outlined the benefits, and con was barely coherent, with the few harms that were understandable either refuted by pro - or irrelevant to the resolution.
Arguments resoundingly to pro.
Sources:
Pro used thorough and excessive sources throughout to prove his claims. When pro lists beneficial elements of AI, he adds to his warrant by citing the basis for the claims.
His opening round contained sources, from the DoT, Ohio university, IBM, science daily and many others. Pro builds up the benefits mainly by citing these sources to make claims about what AI will and won’t do.
Con, cites 4 sources total. 2 are completely irrelevant about game theory, and 2 are for a seemingly irrelevant argument about cost and difficulty of AI which was unrelated to the resolution.
Pro has quantity and quality - con needed to back up his claims with evidence rather than relying on his stream of consciousnesses.
Sources to pro.
5.) Cons round 3
I generally give up. This was unreadable and made almost no sense. It was literally incomprehensible to me.
To his credit, pro attempts in his R4 to try and stage a few counter points: but at this point almost nothing pro quotes from con, and nothing appears to be a credible warranted harm from automation.
Con is a collection of what ifs, assertions about affordability, and assertions about blame.
There was some mention about black mail that made no sense at all.
6.) Cons round 4 and 5 are little better than round 3. I understood barely anything he was trying to put forward and barely seems to offer any coherent detriment that is fully explained or warranted.
Even assuming that all the semi harms pro points out: potential issues with legal problem, lack of potential popularity, etc: the ones that are harms don’t appear to particularly problematic compared to pros benefits - and the ones that remain seem less to do with negative aspects of the technology - and more concerning why he feels it won’t actually be adopted - which isn’t related to the resolution.
Pro points out that if this is the case in the future, it will be the case now as people are currently being alert driving. Pro also points out that systems may become advanced enough to not require being alert in to first place.
2.) Slippery slope.
Con appears to claim that accepting autonomous vehicles will be a slippery slope to destroying humanity. Con barely even hazards an explanation of why. It appears he’s arguing that as we see how easy automation makes our lives, that well completely take over.
Pro easily dismantles this, he points out we’ve automated much of our lives already, why is this one that would
Spell doom?
3.) Blame
Con argues that this will fail as there will be issues with blame. Pro clearly explains there are already instances where this is handled in the case of planes.
4.) civil rights.
Con claims that people will be forced to give up their cars. Pro points out no one is saying this is mandatory.
Before I start, I would encourage Con to work on his debate style. The waffling, grandiose language and wall of text approach is detrimental to people being able to understand your arguments. This, combined with a contrived and often tangential set of arguments completely undermines the ability of others to understand your position as a whole also.
Almost every round was barely readable, I had to read each round multiple times to try - and fail - to understand what the incoherent mess was trying to convey.
Arguments:
Pro lists, in detail a number of the major benefits of autonomous vehicles. While short, pro does a very good job of succinctly explaining all the core benefits. Self driving cars are safer, can save time, energy and free up peoples time and productivity.
While Con argues there would be no fuel saving, though pro clearly explained the reasons why there would be. Other than this con appears to accept the entirety of pros list. This simplifies my task down to weighing the individual harms.
Cons Harms:
1.) Con argues that people being alert causes harm to humans intelligence by dulling the mind.
Sure, once this ones done.
I highly doubt it that would be wildly effective, that was actually a terrible argument, made successful only by his opponents even worse argument.
I don’t think RM is brave enough, otherwise I would have directly challenged him. I’m just seeing if there is any Flat Earthers out there, as I find going through and communicating the science interesting and challenging.
Plus, I’m pretty smart - and the counter position is “out there”. Taking the burden of proof helps level the playing field a bit.
I enjoy taking the burden of proof in scientific debates of this kind, as it challenges by scientific knowledge and ability. You would be surprised at how many people are not able to prove basic scientific information.
I’m thinking of Kitzmiller vs Dover.
Thanks for taking the time to vote RM. I appreciate you taking the time.
How open minded and scientific.
Show me the evidence so I can decide how to reject it.
Why, for the love of all that is holy are you still tagging whiteflame
I don’t know which is funnier, that he thinks you’re a Nazi because ww2 German chemical companies still exist - or the fact that he keeps tagging Whiteflame for literally no reason.
You're always free to vote
He didn’t moderate if. Your vote is still there.
Bump!
Thanks for taking the time to vote. I know that must have taken a while. I appreciate it.
The problem in your other debate was between your chair and your keyboard.
Ugh, I’m really sorry Moe.
This is an absolute travesty.
I know that voting restrictions are being worked on, but given this blatant abuse here just lost Moe a debate - is there any possibility this can be retroactively adjusted? Even if you had to manually tweak ELO?
4.) intelligence is predicated on physical brains.
While I get cons point here, this seems like a pretty tenuous argument. If your arguing that a supernatural being can or can’t exist, I think that whether intelligence depends on physical things is the least of you worries.
While pros counter was long, it’s two basic points “correlation is not causation”, and “just because we’re intelligent and have brains doesn’t mean everything that is intelligent requires brains”
This is not massively strong on either side here, but I kinda lean pro here that con is making larger factual claims without a factual basis.
This is my main issue with cons approach, if you want to use facts to undermine a philosophical argument - those facts have to be well supported, in multiple places con has not done that.
Given these, I feel that cons counter to both the KCA and the IS contingency argument were not sufficient, and therefore arguments go to pro
Finally, con raises the idea of quantum fluctuations being able to produce things without direct cause. Pro points out that unstable energy are the cause - and that just because we don’t necessarily directly observe the cause doesn’t mean that one doesn’t explicitly exist.
Pro plays to the intuitive strength of the KCA here. The reference example that it may have a cause was actually pretty good.
However, cons was fairly adamant that there could be no cause as quantum fluctuations are the absence of anything at all. My issue here is that while I feel cons argument is just as asserted as the KCA, I find pros rebuttal of quantum fluctuations having a cause more convincing - I don’t think this element of the KCA was strongly won by pro, but I think cons argument falls short, if con is going to argue a factual rather than philosophical objection, the basis has of it has to be better established.
3.) Temporal creation.
So I feel I’m missing something here. Con keeps arguing that creation is impossible because creation is temporal. But also argues that the universe can “originate”.
It seems pro happily agrees that the origin of the universe is timeless, and it’s not necessarily a temporal chain of events.
To me, that should be the end of it, I’m quite happy to consider the idea of philosophical non-temporal creation along the lines of timeless quantum fluctuations, or a timeless God.
It seems con is too: but is objection to it appears to be whether it is called “creation” or not. I literally do not get the line of reasoning con makes here and it appears to be merely splitting hairs - as I do not view pros premise of creation philosophically different from cons idea of quantum origination.
Con also states that the multiverse is necessary and contingent, given his contingent is being used here, I don’t think com really provides an explanation at how the multiverse can both require something else to exist, and is it’s own cause. Pro points these aspects out in his rebuttal.
Cons only response is that the universe can be dependent on itself through quantum fluctuations.
My issue here, as pro elaborates a little - is that quantum fluctuations and the laws that cause them may well have a cause. That the universe originated from anything else implies that it’s contingent on something else. If pro has argued that the universe (or multiverse), was always there, I’d be more sympathetic, as happily matches P1, but pro arguing that the multiuniverse originated from itself is not convincing - especially as con conceded P1.
2.) The KCA
Pro made a good KCA argument, that there has to be an underlying first cause to prevent infinite regress. I feel does well to show this cause must have some of , but not all, the qualities attributed to God.
I don’t buy that this is special pleading, as pro is attributing God as the “thing” he showed to exist. IE: There must be an exemption somewhere, so if there is already an exemption, it supports the idea of God.
I don’t feel that cons circular reasoning argument is that good here either, as I feel that the conclusion of God is drawn not from an implicit assumption that such uncaused causes exists, but that an uncaused first cause is a conclusion that follows from resolving infinite regress on P1.
Pro covers these points pretty well in his rebuttal.
Con also asked additional questions about the exemption, which pro covers by pointing out that it’s not an exemption as there is no proven rule.
0.) New information for pro.
Given cons history, and the likelihood that pro is not aware of the details, I wanted to challenge the agreed voting rules: I believe con has asked you to accept the rules in order prevent the most regular voters, and those who have voted against him in the past from voting to improve his chances of winning. In addition, the chances are likely that Bifolkal, the only con voter is con himself too.
I do not feel that I should be bound by rules that inherently benefit one side, when the other party may not have been aware of all the issues at hand.
If pro reviews my RFD, or reviews my voting history on Magics debates (where I have gone both ways) and concludes it is biased or unfair in ANY way, feel free notify the moderation team and remove this vote.
1.) IS, Necessary being.
So this argument, is essentially that all things require a cause, that means that there must be something that exists to be that cause that doesn’t itself require a cause.
I felt the portion of this argument for why this cause was a personal an intelligent being was highly tenuous, and almost an afterthought.
It wasn’t fully clear to me what cons rebuttal actually was, by the end, it appeared that he used the concept of a multiverse to argue that sum of contingents isn’t limited to this universe. To me, it isn’t fully clear why con feels this negates the premise, because I do not believe anything pro said would be refuted if you assumed that the sum of contingent things ended at the multiverse level rather than at the universe level. This counter appears to be mostly splitting hairs, rather than genuine rebuke